ESCAPE FROM GAOL

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 143, 20 June 1938, Page 10

ESCAPE FROM GAOL

PERIOD AT LARGE

IMPRISONMENT OR NOT?

INTERESTING CASE

Whether the period during which a prisoner is at large after escaping from custody should be counted as part of the sentence originally imposed upon him was a question referred to the Court of Appeal today by way of originating summons.

The plaintiff was Thomas William Wilson, for whom Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell appeared, and the defendant was the Attorney-General, who was represented by the Solicitor-General (Mr. H. H. Cornish, K.C.).

The Court consisted of the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), Mr. Justice Kennedy, Mr. Justice Johnston, and Mr. Justice Fair.

On June 18, 1931, at Dunedin, Wilson was sentenced by Mr. Justice Kennedy to concurrcnt terms of imprisonment, the longest being one of five years with hard labour, to be followed by one year's reformative detention. Wilson was transferred to the Auckland prison and on December 16, 1931, he was removed for treatment to the Auckland Hospital, from which he escaped four days later. He went to the United States and in March, 1936, he was deported from Los Angeles, being arrested at Auckland on April 17. 1936. On May 4, 1936, he was sentenced by Mr. Justice Fair to twelve months' imprisonment for escaping, the sentence to be cumulative with the sentences of June, 1931.

The sentences of June, 1931, expired on June 17, 1937, unless the escape suspended the operation of the sentences, and if those sentences expired on June 17, 1937, the sentence imposed by Mr. Justice Fair expired on June 17, 1938.

The Court today had to determine whether the terms "imprisonment" and "reformative detention" in the sentence imposed by Mr. Justice Kennedy at Dunedin should be deemed to include the period of time during which Wilson was at large after escape. PRACTICE IN DOMINION. Mr. Treadwell quoted various regulations and legal authorities in support of his contention that the sentence was current during a period of escape. It was the practice in New Zealand to regard it so, he said. Mr. Cornish said he did not agree. Mr. Treadwell replied that he was assured by the Controller of Prisons that what he had stated was correct. The Chief Justice said that possibly the point had never been thought worth raising before, as usually escapees were captured again almost immeHiately.

Mr. Treadwell said that sometimes prisoners were at large for a considerable time, but even if the escape were for only one day it would be necessary for the gaoler to know on what particular day the sentence would ultimately expire.

Mr. Cornish agreed with the Chief Justice's suggestion that the point had not previously been thought worth raising.

Mr. Treadwell said that he did not regard the matter as of little importance, as the liberty of the subject was involved. A man could take action for wrongful detention if he were released a day later than the expiration of his sentence.

Presenting the case for the AttorneyGeneral, Mr. Cornish said that to fulfil the Court's order of imprisonment there had to be imprisonment. Mr. Treadwell had contended that being unlawfully at large was imprisonment, but that could not be. Mr. Treadwell's case fell unless it could be held that while the prisoner was at large he was still in the lawful custody of the gaoler, and it had been expressly decided otherwise by the Court of Appeal. Argument is proceeding.